Some other stuff worth noting, from me opening up the zip file in that post and looking around some.
Like the post says, every leader has a different Dogpile War chance (iDogpileWarRand) which affects the odds of wanting to join a war just due to a dogpile. This stat might actually shed some light on some AI personalities we've seen. The way it works, as I understand it, is that it is 100/iDogpileWarRand. De Gaulle, interestingly, has the highest likelihood of dogpiling! With only a 20 score, his odds of simply wanting to dogpile at a base chance is a massive 5% per turn! This means that De Gaulle is more than twice as likely to dogpile someone if the AI is checking for Dogpile War than Montezuma is to just declare war normally (5% vs. 2%). This might also explain why the AI tends to be good at dogpiling or at "sniffing out" weak competition: The Dogpile War chance is checked even if normal war fails and is at a higher rate, combined with the AI performing a defense power check.
Similarly, it has often been said that Catherine plays "opportunistically": One reason for that might be the Dogpile War chance! After De Gaulle's lone 20, she is in a large tie for 2nd with 25, giving her a 4% chance per turn base to want to dogpile someone. On top of that, Catherine's -2 diplo penalty makes her more likely to dislike people and have a larger multiplier for relations / avoid Friendly / then proceed to be willing to dogpile when they are attacked. It also just in general means she is more likely to take on a two front war rather than a random 1v1.
Interestingly, there are multiple "peaceful" AI who have a high iDogpileWarRand! In particular, Roosevelt and Elizabeth have a 25 Dogpile War value, giving them the same 4% chance as Catherine. I can't remember all of Elizabeth's wars right now, but it might explain some of her more random war declarations in some games. The lowest value is Lincoln, not Gandhi, whose lone 150 value gives him only a 0.67% base chance per turn (which, it should be noted, is still 3x Gandhi's base war chance of 0.2%). Willem has a unique 80 value and Charlemagne has a unique 75 value, as well. The only values are 20, 25, 50, 75, 80, 100 and 150: 20 is only with De Gaulle, 75 is only Charlemagne, 80 is only Willem and 150 is only Lincoln.
Also, the AI does calculate dogpile power into account, by adding the sum of the power of all people at war with the potential victim to their own power. This means even a weak person at war with a dogpile victim can matter a lot to both the total war and dogpile war chances: Total War does 3/2*OP(OwnPower)*MaxNearPR or MaxDistPR depending on how close or far the enemy is. Something also worth noting is that MaxNearPR is essentially always higher than MaxDistPR! For the relevancy of this game, Louis' MaxNearPR is 110 while MaxDistPR is 70, so the effect of adding a dogpile attacker's power to their own is further multiplied by the higher MaxNearPR compared to other options. (As a note, this also helps explain Washington joining the war: Louis AND Alexander's power must have ballooned that OP score quite a bit when it comes to rolling for if they want to declare war!)
In fact, something I noticed is some of the inconsistent or mid tier leaders have a high dogpile war rating compared to their aggression. For example, Sury is "only" a 7/10 aggression rating, but he has the 25 Dogpile War and so has the near-highest dogpile war chance. Some other examples include Brennus (7/10 aggression, 25 Dogpile War), the aforementioned Catherine, Tokugawa (7.3 Aggression, 25 Dogpile War), the aforementioned Elizabeth and Qin Shi Huang (3.9 Aggression, 25 Dogpile War). Interestingly, Huanya and Justinian both have the 100 Dogpile War rating that means they only have a 1% chance, sae with Cyrus.
For fun, given he has the highest chance, I went back to the game De Gaulle won. In that game, he only declared war on Frederick after Napoleon did (dogpile), only joined the war on Hatshepsut after Napoleon + Shaka declared war (dogpile) and only declared war on Boudica after she declared on Napoleon (dogpile). He did not declare a single war on his own the entire game! This also might explain why he seemed to enter wars in that game only to pick up spoils or at opportune times: He had a lot higher chance to declare war after people started, at 5% base, and as the power of the dogpile target goes down the chance they become a dogpile target goes up due to the reduction in MaxNearPR or MaxDistPR. This might mean an ideal map for De Gaulle to win on is one where there are likely to be many wars against other targets that his AI will then join in on due to his high chance of dogpiling. This actually almost perfectly describes the game he won, too! He was surrounded by friends unlikely to attack him (Boudica is inclined to be friends with him and won't declare at Pleased, but is still a warmonger) while bordering a peaceful civ (Frederick) who is surrounded by aggressive civs who can start a war (Napoleon in particular is VERY close and aggressive!).
A few more random notes: I originally opened the zip file to see what Louis' was, which is 50. This means his base chance is 2% at dogpiling, the same liklihood of Montezuma declaring war normally. Mansa Musa actually has a 50 dogpile chance as well, making him a teching leader more likely to dogpile than most: This may explain why Mansa seems to go to war more than you'd think for the peaceful guy ("because he will plot war at "Pleased" and isn't afraid to lay the smack down despite his 1.6/10 aggression rating. " The fact he will declare at Pleased and has a very high dogpile rating is likely why he lays the smackdown!). Asoka also has a 50 dogpile rating, making him another very low aggression leader more willing to war with dogpiles.
Charlemagne has a large difference between his MaxNearPR and MaxDistPR, with 100 NearPR but only 30 DistPR. This means Charlemagne is significantly more likely to go after smart, nearby targets and may explain stuff like picking off Alexander a little. Napoleon, on the other hand, apparently did not learn from his war with Russia, because his MaxNearPR and MaxDistPR are almost exactly the same, 120/100. This means Napoleon is a lot more likely to make bizarre, long distance wars which might explain some issues he has had.
Some other quick examples (using NearPR/DistPR): Tokugawa has a large difference (100/30), Qin has a very large difference (120/40), Roosevelt has almost no difference (100/80), Alexander has almost no difference (90/70), Gilgamesh has a ridiculously large difference (120/30), Joao II has almost no difference (130/110)...and, most extremely, Sitting Bull has a RIDICULOUSLY huge gap between NearPR and DistPR! Because he weighs NearPR at 130 (which is actually quite high), but he has ZERO for DistPR! What an absurd difference.
Anyway, that's enough for now, but I might look into this more later. Anyone who is better at this, the zip in the CivFanatics post I had earlier still works and lets you dig deep into a lot of these stats as you wish!
EDIT: Looking at it, I am not actually sure MaxNearPR is used specifically for Dogpile Wars or if just the DogpilePower stat is used. Also, DogpilePower I THINK is not used for Total War but only base OurPower. The observations abotu MaxNearPR going down as units are lost in a war leading to higher dogpiles remains, though. The stat for Dogpile War seems to be 2/3*DogpilePower.
Similarly, it has often been said that Catherine plays "opportunistically": One reason for that might be the Dogpile War chance! After De Gaulle's lone 20, she is in a large tie for 2nd with 25, giving her a 4% chance per turn base to want to dogpile someone. On top of that, Catherine's -2 diplo penalty makes her more likely to dislike people and have a larger multiplier for relations / avoid Friendly / then proceed to be willing to dogpile when they are attacked. It also just in general means she is more likely to take on a two front war rather than a random 1v1.
Interestingly, there are multiple "peaceful" AI who have a high iDogpileWarRand! In particular, Roosevelt and Elizabeth have a 25 Dogpile War value, giving them the same 4% chance as Catherine. I can't remember all of Elizabeth's wars right now, but it might explain some of her more random war declarations in some games. The lowest value is Lincoln, not Gandhi, whose lone 150 value gives him only a 0.67% base chance per turn (which, it should be noted, is still 3x Gandhi's base war chance of 0.2%). Willem has a unique 80 value and Charlemagne has a unique 75 value, as well. The only values are 20, 25, 50, 75, 80, 100 and 150: 20 is only with De Gaulle, 75 is only Charlemagne, 80 is only Willem and 150 is only Lincoln.
Also, the AI does calculate dogpile power into account, by adding the sum of the power of all people at war with the potential victim to their own power. This means even a weak person at war with a dogpile victim can matter a lot to both the total war and dogpile war chances: Total War does 3/2*OP(OwnPower)*MaxNearPR or MaxDistPR depending on how close or far the enemy is. Something also worth noting is that MaxNearPR is essentially always higher than MaxDistPR! For the relevancy of this game, Louis' MaxNearPR is 110 while MaxDistPR is 70, so the effect of adding a dogpile attacker's power to their own is further multiplied by the higher MaxNearPR compared to other options. (As a note, this also helps explain Washington joining the war: Louis AND Alexander's power must have ballooned that OP score quite a bit when it comes to rolling for if they want to declare war!)
In fact, something I noticed is some of the inconsistent or mid tier leaders have a high dogpile war rating compared to their aggression. For example, Sury is "only" a 7/10 aggression rating, but he has the 25 Dogpile War and so has the near-highest dogpile war chance. Some other examples include Brennus (7/10 aggression, 25 Dogpile War), the aforementioned Catherine, Tokugawa (7.3 Aggression, 25 Dogpile War), the aforementioned Elizabeth and Qin Shi Huang (3.9 Aggression, 25 Dogpile War). Interestingly, Huanya and Justinian both have the 100 Dogpile War rating that means they only have a 1% chance, sae with Cyrus.
For fun, given he has the highest chance, I went back to the game De Gaulle won. In that game, he only declared war on Frederick after Napoleon did (dogpile), only joined the war on Hatshepsut after Napoleon + Shaka declared war (dogpile) and only declared war on Boudica after she declared on Napoleon (dogpile). He did not declare a single war on his own the entire game! This also might explain why he seemed to enter wars in that game only to pick up spoils or at opportune times: He had a lot higher chance to declare war after people started, at 5% base, and as the power of the dogpile target goes down the chance they become a dogpile target goes up due to the reduction in MaxNearPR or MaxDistPR. This might mean an ideal map for De Gaulle to win on is one where there are likely to be many wars against other targets that his AI will then join in on due to his high chance of dogpiling. This actually almost perfectly describes the game he won, too! He was surrounded by friends unlikely to attack him (Boudica is inclined to be friends with him and won't declare at Pleased, but is still a warmonger) while bordering a peaceful civ (Frederick) who is surrounded by aggressive civs who can start a war (Napoleon in particular is VERY close and aggressive!).
A few more random notes: I originally opened the zip file to see what Louis' was, which is 50. This means his base chance is 2% at dogpiling, the same liklihood of Montezuma declaring war normally. Mansa Musa actually has a 50 dogpile chance as well, making him a teching leader more likely to dogpile than most: This may explain why Mansa seems to go to war more than you'd think for the peaceful guy ("because he will plot war at "Pleased" and isn't afraid to lay the smack down despite his 1.6/10 aggression rating. " The fact he will declare at Pleased and has a very high dogpile rating is likely why he lays the smackdown!). Asoka also has a 50 dogpile rating, making him another very low aggression leader more willing to war with dogpiles.
Charlemagne has a large difference between his MaxNearPR and MaxDistPR, with 100 NearPR but only 30 DistPR. This means Charlemagne is significantly more likely to go after smart, nearby targets and may explain stuff like picking off Alexander a little. Napoleon, on the other hand, apparently did not learn from his war with Russia, because his MaxNearPR and MaxDistPR are almost exactly the same, 120/100. This means Napoleon is a lot more likely to make bizarre, long distance wars which might explain some issues he has had.
Some other quick examples (using NearPR/DistPR): Tokugawa has a large difference (100/30), Qin has a very large difference (120/40), Roosevelt has almost no difference (100/80), Alexander has almost no difference (90/70), Gilgamesh has a ridiculously large difference (120/30), Joao II has almost no difference (130/110)...and, most extremely, Sitting Bull has a RIDICULOUSLY huge gap between NearPR and DistPR! Because he weighs NearPR at 130 (which is actually quite high), but he has ZERO for DistPR! What an absurd difference.
Anyway, that's enough for now, but I might look into this more later. Anyone who is better at this, the zip in the CivFanatics post I had earlier still works and lets you dig deep into a lot of these stats as you wish!
EDIT: Looking at it, I am not actually sure MaxNearPR is used specifically for Dogpile Wars or if just the DogpilePower stat is used. Also, DogpilePower I THINK is not used for Total War but only base OurPower. The observations abotu MaxNearPR going down as units are lost in a war leading to higher dogpiles remains, though. The stat for Dogpile War seems to be 2/3*DogpilePower.